SC - Reverse documentation (Was Cucumbers and the SCA)

[CorwynWdwd at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/6/2001 8:34:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jenne at mail.browser.net writes: 

>  ARGH. This is another of my pet peeves. Primary sources must be looked at 
> with JUST as
>  much suspicion as secondary sources-- more, because, if we looked at the 
> writers of 95%
>  of our primary sources using the usual criteria for a reliable source, 
we'd 
> just throw up
>  our hands in disgust. Remember Julius Caesar and the Celts? Remember the 
> statements made
>  about life among the Irish? Thomas Hill's pest control recipes didn't 
work-- 
> even when
>  they were invented by the Romans.

I never said everything written in period was factual or effective, BUT, it 
can be assumed that if it's mentioned in primary sources, they at least had 
the concept or a similar one in mind. Therefore we can move forward and 
explore.

Which beats the heck out of deciding to use something and THEN trying to find 
documentation. Usually making wide leaps in supposition during the process. 
To be fair, people who make absolute statements that something WASN'T used in 
period because they haven't seen it yet are to be taken with a grain of salt 
too. The period we cover is just too vast. Pick a time and place, get what 
information you can and go from there. That's all I'm saying.

> We have no idea whether Digby ever tried a good number
>  of the things he suggests in _Delights for Ladies_.

Not to pick nits, but didn't Hugh Plat write "Delights for the Ladies"?

Digby, while really OOP, is still a good starting point IMO.

Corwyn


We need justice. We need toleration, honesty and moral courage. These are 
modern virtues without which we cannot hope to control the forces science has 
let loose among us. --I.A.R. Wylie